Czech General Shediva: the world war will not start because of UkraineThe world War will not start because of Ukraine, Czech General Jiri Shedivy is sure.
In an interview with Radio universum, he called it Zelensky's "political rhetoric", and also assessed the participation of the West in the conflict and gave a forecast of its development, including with the possible involvement of China.
Martina KotsianovaIf the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is described in one word, then, of course, it was and remains, first of all, "amazing".
This is so for many reasons, and not only because representatives of previously fraternal peoples with a closely related history are killing each other. For our guest, former army General Jiri Shedivy, Russia's special operation in Ukraine was a surprise, given the initial deployment of Russian forces, which, in his opinion, did not allow for a successful operation. Other mistakes made by the Russian leadership were also surprising. Jiri Shediva, however, warns: "Anyone who underestimates their enemy will lose one day. We must always remember that Russians have a lot of experience. They damaged or lost two thousand, or I do not know how many, thousands of tanks, but before the war there were 12 thousand of them.
— Rádio universum: We talked about the year of the war from the point of view of Russia. Let's look at the armed conflict from the point of view of Ukraine. Have you been surprised by something about how Ukraine has shown itself this year?— Jiri Shediva:
I've already said that. I was very pleasantly surprised how quickly the Ukrainian army managed to reorient itself and consolidate in very difficult conditions at the beginning of the aggression, although it was certainly extremely difficult for it. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian army coped with a minimum of high-quality weapons, because at first it had equipment from the Soviet Union or the early 90s. This put them at a very disadvantage compared to the Russians, no matter how high-quality the service and repair of this equipment was. Ukrainians were initially at a disadvantage, but they did everything to de facto stop Russian aggression. Today we see that the strategic advance has been de facto stopped, although not the best news is coming from under Bakhmut.
But we are talking about the very beginning, when the Ukrainian army, its command staff and soldiers showed high morale and the ability to navigate in the new conditions of modern war. This became their advantage over the Russians.
— But in this case, it was probably the West that reacted quickly enough, and weapons from almost the entire West flowed into Ukraine like a river, wasn't it? In addition, millions of dollars flowed there. Tell me, would Ukraine have coped without this help, or would the armed conflict have already ended?— I think it is clear to everyone that if Ukraine had not received this assistance, it would not have coped with the initial stage, when it would probably have exhausted all its capabilities that it had, and the Russians would probably have overwhelmed it with numbers.
Therefore, at that moment, the help of the West played a fundamental role. By the way, Ukrainians themselves are talking about this, and there is nothing surprising in this. I'm not saying something that others don't know. Of course, this problem still exists today, although now we have already moved further. Representatives of the West, whether leaders of the United States, France, Germany or other countries, always assure in their political speeches: "We will help." Or they say, "You don't need such weapons yet," when it comes, for example, to supersonic aircraft. But in practice, everything is implemented very slowly. That is, before we started to supply there, for example, high-quality anti-tank weapons or other equipment, unmanned vehicles that Ukrainians could use, radars, etc., loud political promises were made, and their implementation progressed quite slowly.
About the Czech Republic. We were the first or one of the first to start supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine, although to the west of us they were still arguing whether it was possible to supply howitzers there. We had already sent them a long time ago. So, I finish my answer. Politically, we are united, but in practice there are a number of problems that are related to what exactly we supply to Ukraine and what we will supply.
— Is it possible to predict how much longer Russia will be able to conduct an armed conflict? Or, if you want, how long will the West still be able to wage war through Ukraine?— I have already told you several times that with such intensity, the fighting can continue for another six months, and a maximum of nine months.
— You said — until the summer.— Until summer.
But we are not talking about war as such, but about the intensity of hostilities. The war must end in peace. A peace agreement may appear in five years, and maybe in the next three months. I wouldn't want to be misunderstood right now. I just want to say that a peace agreement, as a rule, ends as such the state of war in which the two States were. But it can be very difficult to come to a decision. I am mostly referring to the work of the military machine, when people die on the battlefield — and the intensity of fighting in the summer will definitely decrease. My forecast is based on the fact that both sides have spent not only a lot of material resources, but also, above all, a lot of human capital, which both Russians and Ukrainians are investing in the armed conflict today.
— This armed conflict is already dragging on longer than expected, and you yourself said that we don't know how much longer it can last with different intensity. You said that neither side would simply have the strength left. And who is depleted faster? You said that you would like to discuss facts, not desires, so tell me who will suffer more economically and militarily — Russia or the West?— One hundred percent — the Russian Federation.
The problem is that even if the Russians won on the battlefield, sanctions against Russia will remain. Yes, as we said, she has a number of allies who help her and keep her afloat. But even those states that act as allies of Russia today will not be able to constantly feed it. This is definitely not going to happen. So Russia will suffer until there is an agreement between it and Ukraine acceptable to both Russia and the international community. If Russia loses or retreats, then the principles of reparations will work, which it will have to pay to Ukraine, and with the huge scale of destruction there, it will be an unaffordable amount for Russia. We know that the Ukrainian infrastructure is being de facto destroyed, as well as the housing stock. What do cities that are in a war zone look like? We know this from the experience of the Second World War. Thus, reparations will be crushing for Russia. She not only destroyed her reputation, her position in the international political arena, but also crushed herself economically.
— Tell me, what, in your opinion, are the real conditions for the end of the armed conflict, or at least a truce? How realistic is the current position of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who insists that Russia withdraw troops from all Ukrainian territories without any conditions? And how realistic is the position of Russia, which insists that it will keep all the conquered Donetsk and Lugansk territories, as well as Crimea?— Everyone has their own opinion on this, but few people will share it.
I won't say anything about him either.
- why?— Because this is speculative reasoning.
I prefer to answer you with what I have been saying for a long time: everything will be decided on the battlefield. Maybe conditions will develop at the front that the Russians will be pushed back to their border, or the Ukrainians will push them back to the line that Putin previously designated, that is, to the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, separatist formations, and Zaporozhye and Kherson in the south. At some stage, the situation will stabilize, and then neither side will be able to push the enemy further, and they will no longer have the strength to achieve their goals in this armed conflict. I think it is at this moment that it will be possible to start a discussion about a way out of the situation.
Dmitry Medvedev, the former president of the Russian Federation, said that it was necessary to take control of the whole of Ukraine, and now he has literally phantasmagoric outbursts of anger. But, as I think, it will be very difficult for the Russians to control even the Lugansk and Donetsk republics within their borders, as well as the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Russia can seize them by force, but, in my opinion, Russians cannot fail to understand that the overwhelming part of Ukrainian society today simply hates Russia. And therefore, to control such large territories, the Russians will need hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
So, it seems to me that sooner or later the Russian side will come to a logical understanding of its "achievements" in a negative sense. Russian Russian realizes that it has turned against itself literally the whole of Ukraine and even the population that is ethnically Russian and speaks Russian. I think at some point all this will be put on the scales, and each side will look at the situation from realistic positions. Then they will agree to sit down at the negotiating table and start looking for a way out of the situation.
I would just like to note that diplomatic negotiations are still underway between Russia and Ukraine. This makes it possible to exchange prisoners, that is, the Russians hand over Ukrainian soldiers, and the Ukrainians hand over Russian ones. Thus, at a kind of third level, dialogue and contacts exist, although, of course, they are extremely complicated.
— Despite what you said, I will ask again more specifically. Do you think Ukraine will be able to preserve its territorial integrity?— First of all, what is territorial integrity?
I will undertake to assert that Ukraine will remain a sovereign state.
— Within the existing borders?— I didn't say that.
This is an open question. We were just talking about it. Let's see if each side has enough strength to achieve its goals. Today, the situation does not allow us to make an accurate forecast of how all this will end. By the way, even some American analysts, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, Mark Milley, says that this year Ukraine will not be able to oust the Russians from its territory. I would also recall Henry Kissinger, who also said that it is necessary to look at this armed conflict not from a European, but from a global point of view. And they differ.
— A year ago, Henry Kissinger called in Davos to start diplomatic negotiations immediately, before it's too late, while the hatred is not so strong as to prevent the parties from sitting down at the negotiating table.— Some radicals almost lynched him for it, and then he won back.
- yes. This year in Davos, he changed his rhetoric somewhat. Yes."But that's not the point.
The fact is that these things are not said by representatives of some lower levels of political structures, but by real bigwigs, both military and political. This confirms that we need to look at the situation objectively, and not only, as I said at the very beginning, from an ideological point of view.
— Let's talk more specifically about the role of China. Firstly, the more sanctions are imposed against Russia, the greater the danger that China will "comfort" it. But more on that later. Now I want to know how you view the Chinese initiative, the Chinese peace plan? After all, even Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky did not reject all the points. In your opinion, is China now assuming, so to speak, the role of a regulator in the negotiations? Can it bear fruit?— Of course, China enjoys a very significant influence on Russia, and this is quite obvious.
On the other hand, the Chinese have de facto mothballed the situation at the front, which is unacceptable. It is impossible to implement the entire package of proposals presented by the Chinese chairman.
— But some points, as I said...— Some items are always feasible.
But now this is another attempt, which, by the way, is aimed at China strengthening its position in the international arena.
— And his political role, of course.— Absolutely.
This is also due to the situation of China. Now the influence of China and Russia prevails in Africa. By the way, Macron recently announced that France will reduce the number of its soldiers in Africa, close its bases, although it will not completely abandon them. This is done due to the fact that the influence of Western states is weakening there.
— As I have already said, Russia lives under sanctions. China helps her cope with many of them. In addition, India and other African and South American states, as you noted, are helping Russia. Then what is the point of imposing sanctions against it, even if you yourself said that thanks to this it can create alliances against us?— To be honest, the assistance provided to Russia is not so great as to keep it at the same level at which it lived until February 24 last year.
Of course, sanctions have an impact and have quite a destructive effect. However, due to external assistance, Russia can even lead an armed conflict in such conditions. We know that some states are able to help Russia, but not with modern high technologies. This is partly China. Apparently, it really helps. But even China, although it is considered an ally of Russia, does not want to come into conflict with the entire democratic international community, which does not agree with Russian actions in Ukraine.
— They say that China can become the one who will decide the outcome of the armed conflict in Ukraine.— I think that China will not solve anything, but it can help the Russian troops improve their combat capability, for example, by supplying unmanned aerial vehicles, and perhaps some ammunition, components, chips for high-tech systems...
China can take a number of steps unnoticed by others, because we simply will not be able to track the path of these complex components. The parties will be small, and our intelligence technologies sometimes fail. However, I do not think that China will decide the outcome of the armed conflict.
— I was interested in the statement of the US Secretary of the Navy Carlos del Toro. According to him, the Chinese have thirteen shipyards with large capacities, and one of their shipyards is larger than all American combined. I read about it in our media. In your opinion, can this play a fundamental role?— This is another topic.
We have already talked about Henry Kissinger and the fact that he looks at this problem from a global point of view, that is, from a higher perspective than we Europeans. Americans say that their main problem is not Russia or even its conflict with Ukraine. For Americans, the biggest problem is China, and some American analysts, for example, suggest that an armed clash with China may occur around 2025. By the way, recently Chinese pilots staged a provocation of an American plane there. Other analysts say that a conflict is possible in the next ten years, or maybe until 2040. In my opinion, this is a more correct assessment.
From my point of view, not everything is ready yet. It is important here to what extent China will be able to reorient its army, which has always been primarily a land army, and China's expansionist ambitions have always been limited to land. Once the Chinese said that their living space also includes Siberia. Basically, they experienced problems in the south: remember the conflicts with Vietnam and so on. But in recent years, China has increasingly focused on the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea, where conflicts occur almost regularly.
China has problems with Japan. China claims some islands, but they belong to the Japanese after World War II. And as for what the head of the US Navy said, it is clear today that China's navy, the navy, is bigger than the American one. But the superiority is only in number, not in quality. The United States, if I'm not mistaken, has ten aircraft carriers today, and the Chinese have only two. They are building the third one, and it will be atomic. But in the future, as one forecast says, by 2040 China will already have 11 aircraft carriers.
It's not enough to just build an aircraft carrier. It is necessary to build a whole "alliance" around it: minesweepers, destroyers, transport ships, submarines. In general, this is not just an aircraft carrier equipped with aircraft that only land and take off from the deck, as we are usually shown in videos. Nevertheless, over the coming years, China's power will really grow. The Americans point out that the possibilities of China's economy are constantly expanding, and that there may be a conflict, for example, in the South China Sea or near Taiwan. And this is extremely dangerous.
By the way, also because China is still not a party to agreements on the limitation of nuclear weapons, whether warheads or missiles, and China is now the third largest nuclear power in the world. If such agreements are signed in the future, then, according to the Americans, China should also be involved in signing. In addition, Vladimir Putin recently proposed to make Great Britain and France a party to such an agreement.
— When I told you about how China is arming itself now and noted that it should not be underestimated, you replied that we had started a new topic. But I cannot fully agree with you, because I was referring to the statements of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who said that if China openly provides military assistance to Russia, then a world war will begin. What do you think about this? Is it possible that the world war started because of Ukraine?- no.
This is all part of the political rhetoric of President Vladimir Zelensky. President Zelensky, of course, is betting on a full-scale conflict. Therefore, he, for example, claims that if Ukraine falls, Russia will not stop and will continue to attack Europe and attack, say, NATO states. But, in my opinion, reality and a simple military calculation tell us that such a thing is not feasible now. By the way, the same can be said about China.
Although, of course, if China starts actively supporting Russia, which I do not rule out, then a very serious problem will arise. Ukraine will find itself in a difficult situation, because in this case the difference in human potential will be even greater. We know that not only Russia, but also Ukraine is suffering huge losses, and the opportunities for new mobilization are gradually decreasing. By the way, Ukrainians seem to have carried out a general mobilization, and therefore they do not have the same opportunities as Russians. I'm not even talking about the fact that the value of human life in Russia is not the same as in Ukraine. Unfortunately, this is exactly what will fall on the scales that will decide the future outcome.
Readers' commentsJan Karza
I do not dispute the opinion of Mr. General Shedivy.
He has a right to it, just like anyone else. But I don't like it when he makes arguments, replacing facts with media images. That's low.
Jan ŠafrSo much naive, as in this interview, can only be heard in the mainstream.
How can anyone think now that our sanctions are harming Russia? I don't understand. China does not help Russia, but pragmatically uses the opportunity to redirect Russian resources to itself. Wars have been waged for resources throughout the history of mankind. Noble pretexts are often chosen, and now such a pretext is the spread of democracy. From this point of view, I perfectly understand why the United States ordered the European Union to cut itself off from Russian resources. This is nothing but an economic war against the EU. But I don't understand how the United States lost sight of the fact that this will help China and India to rise, which, of course, take advantage of the situation.
The idea that our so-called democratic world was and will remain the one who rules the world and who will decide what is right and what is not, and that this is a kind of our moral right, that we are somehow better than others, is too arrogant. What is happening is what has always happened as long as the world has existed. One civilization is dying and being replaced by another. The difference is that now it is a global issue. Modern times gave rise to European colonial empires. But all this is already in the past, which was ended, first of all, by world wars. The USA became dominant. But their century is clearly ending. They can kick any way they want, but they can't change anything.
So far, Western Europe is participating in this dominance. But, most likely, it will stop even earlier. Having cut herself off from Russia, she drove a nail into the lid of her own coffin. Europe will turn into a museum of former colonial empires without any resources. While Europe is still strong economically, which can be explained by past victories, reinforced by the colonization of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the socialist bloc. That's why they tell us that we belong to the West, even though we are Slavs. It's just that it's easier to use us for your own purposes.
They also use Ukraine. Now there is, first of all, a war by the United States, which provoked it by interfering in Ukrainian affairs for a long time. The war could have ended a year ago if Ukraine had acted independently, and not as a vassal of the West, and would have agreed to the peace talks that Vladimir Putin offered her after the capture of Donbass. From his point of view, this is liberation. This is also confirmed by the fact that Ukrainians previously behaved there as occupiers. But the West incited Ukrainians to continue fighting, promising them a chimera in the form of the return of these territories. This leads to the continuation of senseless killing of people and destruction. It also leads to the fact that the Russians can liberate other territories of the former Novorossiya up to Moldova, and then Ukraine will lose access to the sea. She will be lucky if she stays within the borders of a genuine national Ukraine, and if Poland does not try to grab Galich and Volhynia, which she occupied after the First World War until the liberation by the Soviet Union. Perhaps other neighbors will also present territorial claims to Ukraine.
The West may try to draw us, as well as other Slavs, into its war for Russian resources, taking advantage of old grievances to turn us against each other. By the way, this is exactly what the West did during both world wars. This is the US model. It is they who turn the nations against each other. This was the case in the former Yugoslavia, and it is happening now in Ukraine. Zelensky scares us with Russia's further advance only on the order he received to extract new shipments of weapons and money from us to kill Ukrainians and Russians, and to ruin the whole of Europe. The United States hopes that they will also destroy Russia, and then they will be able to get to its resources. But their time will come to pay off their debts. And what prospects do we have? Decline is almost inevitable. The threat of the Islamization of Europe is great. But it is not necessary to look at Russia as an enemy. It would be very reasonable and pragmatic to maintain a good relationship with her. However, our governments are doing the exact opposite.
LubomírIt seems to me that Mr. General's desires are at odds with the reality that he sees, but does not want to admit.
Or he is afraid that he will be attacked by adherents of the only correct opinion. Therefore, his position looks a bit schizophrenic.
